1. Promoting Public Service Performance Through Innovation and Administrative Reforms at Regional Level : Lessons from a Decade of Decentralization in Indonesia Promoting Public Service Performance Through Innovation and Administrative Reforms at Regional Level : Lessons from a Decade of Decentralization in Indonesia By: Dr. Adi Suryanto, Msi. Meita Ahadiyati K, Ssi. MPP

2. OUTLINE BACKGROUND CONCEPT ANALYSIS LESSONS LEARNED RECOMMENDATION Q & A

3. BACKGROUND ¤ Embarked on decentralization policy : Law Number 22 Year 1999 on Regional Governments ¤ In 2004, Law Number 32 Year 2004 adjusted decentralization framework ¤ Objectives : enhancing society welfare, service delivery, local competitiveness ¤ Innovation could be identified in functions of local government such as : public order, health care, education service, social problem prevention, etc

4. CONCEPT >> Local government innovation : New initiative to improve local government performance, though it is only new to the adopting >> Decentralization : one source of innovation emergent in local government >>Decentralization - provide discretion - greater roles of nongovernmental actors > greater demand for better performance > demanded to be more accountable and more effective

5. CONCEPT Why Local Government Innovate ? >> To respond to decentralization expectations >> To address limitations and problems >> To customize public service according to local needs >> To maintain the quantity and quality of public service >> To be more competitive

6. Analysis Dynamics >> Early stage of implementation ----- only few regions were able to innovate >> Following Law Number 32 Year 2004 ---- more regions attempted to innovate >> 2008, less in innovative ideas to overcome the local government constraints and to maximize the local potentials >> Few were considered successful, some were less successful >> Influenced by particular national policy, e.g anti corruption control policy lessened local government intention to implement innovative policy. >> Influenced by shortcomings of regulations and decentralization framework

7. Analysis >>Major trends > innovation in administrative services: > health > education > economic development facilitation > anticorruption control >>Benefits - Raising local revenues - growing economic activity - Efficiency of expenditures - improvement towards service excellent >>Initiatives to Foster Local Public Organization Innovation Some initiatives accelerated information exchange on local experiences and created positive climate in fostering local innovations. Unfortunately, such initiatives were not adequate.

8. Analysis Framework of Successful Innovation : An example

9. Analysis Less Successful Innovation : Examples Multifunction identity card by Denpasar city administration >> not inconformity with Central Gov. regulation, has to be abandoned Free education program for hinterlands by Batam city administration. Considered ‘best practiced’ in other locality, in Batam the school attendances were low, as the children were sent to the sea to earn money >> did not anticipate different context adequately Health and education program in Bantul Regency >> strong societal support for the policies but from political support was inadequate Liquor banning policy in West Kalimantan >> be controversial Some regions were successful in implementing administrative policy for efficiency, but did not show significant progress in development indicator >> Less coherent

10. Analysis Success Factors Local government leader Success of the local leaders in building political coalition Strong societal support Innovation readiness Incentive to innovate Barriers Weaknesses in decentralization policy Quality of local government apparatus Culture of local bureaucrat Traditional culture/belief

11. LESSONS LEARNED Enhancing Public Service Performance through Local Government Innovation: Lessons Learned ¤ Highly directed to improve bureaucratic system and pocedures >> ‘administrative heavy’ rather than substantial in meeting local needs ¤ Most of the cases emerged from initiatives and commitment of local political leader >> challenge sustainability in longer term ¤ Derived from short term political demand ¤ Political dynamics involved >> need of building political support, fragmented and conflicting political situation disadvantage for policy realization

12. LESSONS LEARNED Enhancing Public Service Performance through Local Government Innovation: Lessons Learned ¤ Local leader, though could play dominant role in innovation, should not neglect societal support >> lack of participation in policy process to build legitimacy and understanding local needs ¤ Controversial and dilemmatic, might contradict to traditional practice or rule >> need of conformity of innovation with administrative regulation and society aspiration, did not anticipate resistance adequately ¤ ‘Best’ applied in particular locality might not necessarily yield the same result in other context >> did not anticipate this circumstance adequately since beginning of policy process

13. LESSONS LEARNED Enhancing Public Service Performance through Local Government Innovation: Lessons Learned ¤ Directed towards positive objectives, in practice might produce unintended results >> lack in taking into account risk of unintended results, incoherent policies ¤ Disharmony of some regulations was counter-productive to innovative policy ¤ Weaknesses of Central Government capacity in providing clear framework lessened capacity to innovate ¤ Lack of relationship and responsibilities sharing among government level discouraged local innovation

14. Strengthening Local Government Capacity to Innovate for Promoting Local Performance RECOMMEN DATION ¤ Adjusting of decentralization framework and legal framework to stimulate local innovation >> stimulating policies ¤ Local government capacity building >> innovation management capacity ¤ Strengthening culture of innovation in local government >>knowledge sharing, public participation

15. Strengthening Local Government Capacity to Innovate for Promoting Local Performance RECOMMEN DATION ¤ Enhancing sustainability and quality of local innovation >> partnership between government & non- government actors ¤ Incentive for local innovation ¤ ‘good fit’ rather than following ‘best practices’ >> focused on addressing problems, taking advantage of opportunities, maximizing local potential, more comprehensive&coherent policies

16. Q & A

17. شُكْرًا جَزيْلاً Thank you